Over the past five years, the fund’s almost 15% return has beaten 89% of its rivals.

Two members of the fund’s current management team of four started in June 2009. Therefore, this analysis spans the interval from that month through the end of 2017.

The prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Russell Midcap® Value Index. One of the efficient implementations of this index is the iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that the fund returned more than the ETF in only 12% of all rolling 36-month periods, 19% of 24-month periods, and 35% of 12-month periods:

The median cumulative (not annualized) 36-month underpeformance of the fund vs. the ETF was 6.9%.

The rolling returns analysis focuses on relative returns over typical holding periods but ignores the fund’s volatility and exposures. To gain insight into the latter aspects, let’s employ Alpholio™’s patented methodology. In its simplest variant, the methodology constructs a fixed membership and weight reference ETF portfolio that most closely tracks periodic returns of the fund.

Here is the resulting chart of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for AllianzGI NFJ Mid-Cap Value (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ):

To make the implementation practical, the number of ETFs in the reference portfolio was limited to six. Except for a brief period beginning in May 2017, the fund failed to outperform its reference portfolio of comparable volatility.

The following chart with statistics shows the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio:

The final chart with statistics depicts the cumulative total return of the fund and its benchmark ETF:

Despite a slightly higher volatility and downside deviation, the ETF had higher Sharpe and Sortino ratios than those of the fund.

In sum, under current management the AllianzGI NFJ Mid-Cap Value Fund underperformed its benchmark ETF and added little value over its reference ETF portfolio. The fund’s steep front load further diminished its appeal. In 2017, the fund had substantial long- and short-term capital distributions, which made it less suitable for taxable accounts.

To learn more about the Prudential AllianzGI NFJ Mid-Cap Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

A recent story in the New York Times features the Dodge & Cox investment firm and its Stock Fund (DODGX). This $68 billion no-load large-cap fund sports a competitive 0.52% expense ratio and a low 16% turnover. According to the article

Over the past three years, the firm’s main fund, Dodge & Cox Stock, has returned just over 8 percent, trailing the Standard Poor’s 500 index by 1.5 percent during this period… The Dodge & Cox Stock fund’s five-year performance has been better. While many large capitalization mutual funds have struggled to keep pace with the surging Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, which returned 14.2 percent, annualized, through September, Dodge & Cox Stock was up 15.6 percent.

Instead of the relatively short three- and five-year periods, this analysis will use a longer ten-year period through September 2017, which spans the 2008-09 financial crisis. The fund’s prospectus benchmark is the S&P 500® Index. One of the accessible low-cost implementations of this index is the SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (SPY). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that the fund returned more than the ETF in just 40% of all rolling 36-month periods, with a median cumulative (not annualized) return difference of negative 3.06%:

In contrast to our previous post covering the fund, this one will use a simpler variant of the patented Alpholio™ methodology. In this approach, both the membership and weights of ETFs in the reference portfolio are fixed over the entire analysis period. To make the fund substitution practical, the reference portfolio will contain no more than three ETFs.

Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Dodge & Cox Stock (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please consult our FAQ):

The fund added a modest amount of value on a risk-adjusted basis, but did so mostly over only the past year or so. However, the fund’s volatility (measured as standard deviation of monthly returns) was higher than that of the reference ETF portfolio. The fund’s RealBeta™, measured against a broad-based equity ETF, was greater than one.

The following chart with associated statistics shows the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio for the fund:

With the dominant ETF in the reference portfolio (OEF) as benchmark, the fund produced a negative alpha in the CAPM:

Finally, the fund failed to outperform both the SPY and OEF in terms of traditional measures, i.e. the annualized return, volatility, alpha and beta, or Sharpe and Sortino ratios:

In sum, the Dodge & Cox Stock Fund produced unimpressive results when compared to a simple ETF portfolio or even a single ETF. Despite a low turnover, in the late 2016 and early 2017 the fund had significant capital gain distributions, which made it less suitable for taxable accounts. It should also be noted that up to 20% of the fund’s assets may be in securities of foreign issuers, which affects the asset allocation in the overall investment portfolio.

To learn more about the Dodge & Cox Stock and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

This week’s profile in Barron’s features the MFS Value Fund (MEIAX; Class A shares). This $43.5-billion large-cap value fund has a 5.75% maximum sales charge, 0.86% expense ratio and 12% turnover. According to the article

The fund has averaged an annual return of 13.7% over the past five years, beating 89% of its peers, which turned in an average of 11.9%, according to Morningstar. MFS Value’s 9.7% return this year is outpacing 90% of its peers.

The prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Russell 1000 Value Index. One of the long-lived and accessible implementations of this index is the iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that under the longest-serving manager, the fund returned more than the ETF in 51% of all rolling 36-month periods, 46% of 24-month periods, and 43% of 12-month periods.

The median cumulative (not annualized) outperformance over a rolling 36-month period was just 0.16%, while the mean was 0.8%.

A comparison of rolling returns over typical holding periods does not take into account the fund’s exposures or volatility. Let’s take a closer look at the performance of MFS Value by applying Alpholio™’s patented methodology. The simplest variant of this methodology constructs a custom reference ETF portfolio that most closely tracks the returns of the fund. The ETF membership and weights in the reference portfolio are both fixed over the entire analysis period.

Here is the resulting chart with statistics of cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund under current management (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ):

The fund added no value over its reference ETF portfolio, which had a slightly lower volatility. In other words, the fund’s selection of individual stocks did not outperform the composite exposures to market capitalization, sector or investment style it created.

The following chart with related statistics shows the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio for the fund over the same analysis period:

A similar evaluation of the fund over a bit shorter period reveals a dominant equivalent position in the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG). Here is a total return chart for the fund, VIG and IWD:

Although the fund beat IWD, it underperformed VIG in terms of the return, volatility, and traditional risk-adjusted measures.

In sum, under current management the MFS Value Fund delivered unimpressive results vs. readily available investment alternatives. Despite a relatively low expense ratio and turnover of the fund, its performance further suffered from a hefty front load (not included in the above analyses). The fund could be effectively substituted by a single ETF (VIG). During the market downturn in 2008, the fund returned minus 32.85% compared to only minus 26.69% for VIG, which makes the main claim of the article somewhat questionable.

To learn more about the MFS Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

A recent story in The New York Times focused on Parnassus Investments and its Core Equity Fund (PRBLX; Investor Class shares). This $15.7 billion large-cap no-load fund has a reasonable 0.87% net expense ratio and 23% turnover. According to the article

Value-oriented investors who screen out companies that don’t meet strict social standards, [the fund managers], over the last year, generated a respectable 14 percent return in their core equity fund where they have large stakes in Apple and Google. But the positions are not nearly enough to keep pace with the 18 percent return of the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, within which six of the 10 top components are now technology stocks.
…
Over the longer term, however, the Parnassus results are better. For 10 years, the core equity fund handily beats its benchmark — 9 percent compared with 7 percent, a record that outpaces 98 percent of the competition.

Let’s start with rolling returns. The fund’s primary prospectus benchmark is the S&P 500® Index. One of the long-lived implementations of this index is the SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (SPY). From January 2000 through June 2017, the fund returned more than the ETF in approximately 62% of all rolling 36-month periods, 56% of 24-month periods and 54% of 12-month periods. However, the dispersion of outcomes was quite wide, as shown in the following chart and statistics:

While a rolling returns analysis provides useful information about relative performance over typical holding periods, it does not take the fund’s exposures or risk into account. To more accurately adjust for the latter, let’s employ the simplest variant of Alpholio™ patented methodology. In this approach, a custom reference ETF portfolio is built for each analyzed fund to most closely track the fund’s returns. The portfolio has a fixed ETF membership (with a configurable limit) and weights, thus facilitating an easy implementation.

The following chart with associated statistics shows the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Parnassus Core Equity over the ten years through June 2017 (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ):

Compared to the reference portfolio of up to six ETFs, the fund added a fair amount of value over this analysis period and did so with a RealBeta™ well below one.

The following chart with statistics depicts the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same evaluation period:

Now let’s take a look at the fund’s performance over the last five years. Here is the resulting cumulative RealAlpha™ chart with related statistics:

Since mid-2015, the fund lost all of the cumulative RealAlpha™ it previously generated in this analysis period. Also, despite lower volatility (measured by the standard deviation) the RealBeta™ of the fund was higher than that over the broader evaluation period.

The following chart with statistics illustrates the static composition of the reference ETF portfolio over five years:

The final chart with conventional statistics shows the total return of the fund and two of the reference ETFs:

Over the five-year period, the performance of the two ETFs, and especially DSI, converged with that of the fund.

In sum, while the Parnassus Core Equity Fund has a decent long-term record, its recent performance has been similar to that of index-based environmental, social and governance (ESG) products with lower expense ratios. With approximately 40 positions, the fund’s portfolio is fairly concentrated – top ten holdings currently constitute almost 39% of the total. In three of the last four calendar years, the fund had significant distributions, which made it less suitable for taxable accounts.

To learn more about the Parnassus Core Equity and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal profiles the CEO of Alpha Architect LLC, an upstart active investment manager. The firm currently advises five exchange-traded products (ETPs). Four of these ETPs have a sufficiently long history to be analyzed using Alpholio™’s patented methodology.

All of the following analyses employ the simplest variant of the methodology. For each analyzed ETP, the variant constructs a reference portfolio of up to six ETFs that most closely tracks periodic returns of the ETP. Both the membership and weights of ETFs in the reference portfolio are fixed over the entire analysis period.

The ETP produced a significantly lower cumulative return than that of its reference ETF portfolio. It also had a higher volatility due to a relatively small number of deep-value holdings. This was also reflected in a considerably elevated RealBeta™, assessed against a broad-based domestic equity ETF.

The following chart with statistics shows the fixed composition of the reference ETF portfolio for QVAL:

The ETP added significantly more value than its reference ETF portfolio, but only beginning in the second half of last year. This is why the article singles out a recent outperformance of just this product:

…value-focused fund of overseas stocks is beating all its rivals over the past year.

The ETP produced this excess return at the expense of a substantially higher volatility than that of its reference ETF portfolio.

The following chart with associated statistics illustrates the static composition of the reference ETF portfolio for IVAL:

It should be noted that all of the above ETPs except for QVAL have traded at a considerable premium to their net asset value (NAV). For example, as of this writing, IMOM’s one-year price return was 8.50% compared to a 3.10% NAV return. Such pricing discrepancies could partially explain the presence of REM (a domestic real-estate fund) and IHI (a domestic medical device fund), in the reference ETF portfolio for IMOM.

In sum, the majority of Alpha Architect ETPs have so far delivered unimpressive results after a comprehensive adjustment for volatility and exposures. Since the oldest product has less than three years of history, only time will tell whether the performance of these ETPs vs. their reference ETF portfolios will eventually improve. The challenge of any factor investing, including value and momentum, is not only the cyclical variation of performance but also the selection of individual securities to implement the factor.

To learn more about the Alpha Architect and other ETPs, please register on our website.

A recent profile in Barron’s features the Evermore Global Value Fund (EVGBX; Investor Class shares). This $440 million no-load fund has a 1.55% net expense ratio and 59% turnover. According to the article, the fund

… is up 10.6% over the last five years, better than 90% of world stock funds

The primary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the MSCI All-Country World Index ex USA Index. One of the accessible implementations of this index is the iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that from inception inception through February 2017, the fund returned more than the ETF in approximately 70% of all rolling 36-month periods, 71% of 24-month periods and 51% of 12-month periods. The mean and median cumulative (not annualized) outperformance over a rolling 36-period was about 9.7% and 11%, respectively.

While a comparison of rolling returns assesses average relative performance over typical holding periods, it does not take the fund’s volatility or exposures into account. To gain a more comprehensive insight, let’s employ the Alpholio™ patented methodology. In its simplest variant, this approach constructs a reference ETF portfolio with fixed membership and weights, so that periodic returns of the portfolio most closely track those of the analyzed fund. In all of the following analyses, the membership of the reference portfolio was restricted to no more than six ETFs.

Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Evermore Global Value since inception (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please consult our FAQ):

Over its lifetime, the fund failed to add value on a truly risk-adjusted basis. Its cumulative return was lower and the volatility (measured as a standard deviation of monthly returns) higher than those of its reference ETF portfolio. After a long downward trend, the cumulative RealAlpha™ curve flattened out toward the end of the analysis interval. This suggests that the fund’s performance may have lately improved. The fund’s RealBeta™ was slightly below that of the a broad-based domestic equity ETF.

The following chart with associated statistics shows the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same evaluation period:

Given the observation made in the first analysis above, let’s take a closer look at the fund’s more recent performance. The following chart and statistics cover the three-year period through February 2017:

Relative to its reference ETF portfolio, the fund significantly improved its performance beginning in the second quarter of 2016. However, the fund’s volatility was still elevated, mostly likely due to its concentrated holdings.

The following chart with related statistics depicts the fixed reference ETF portfolio over the same three-year period:

In the fact sheet, Evermore Global Value emphasizes its unique strategy: difficult to replicate, special-situations focused investments, typically concentrated in 30-40 positions with an active share near 100. However, in itself an unconventional approach is not a guarantee of success – it was only over the past year that this strategy added any significant value after adjustment for volatility and exposures. As usual, investors are advised to analyze a fund’s performance year by year, instead of just looking at the annualized returns over the industry’s standard one-, three- and five-year periods.

To learn more about the Evermore Global Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

Today’s piece in Barron’s features the Nuveen Small Cap Value Fund (FSCAX; Class A shares). This $1.2-billion small-cap value fund has a maximum 5.75% sales charge, 1.30% expense ratio and 40% turnover. According to the article

The fund has outpaced 87% of its peers over 10 years, and 98% over five, according to Morningstar. Its 50% return in the past year puts it ahead of 90% of its peers.

The primary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Russell 2000® Value Index. One of the long-lived and accessible implementations of this index is the iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN). Alpholio™ calculations show that over the ten calendar years through 2016 the fund returned more than the ETF in about 94% of all rolling 36-month periods, 80% of of 24-month periods and 72% of 12-month periods. The median cumulative (not annualized) outperformance over a rolling 36-month period was 8.35%.

The rolling-returns analysis does not account for the fund volatility or exposures. To gain insight into these performance aspects, let’s employ Alpholio™’s patented methodology. Its simplest variant constructs a reference ETF portfolio with fixed membership and weights that most closely tracks the periodic returns of the analyzed fund. To make the potential substitution more practical, in all of the following analyses the number of ETFs in the reference portfolio was limited to no more than six.

Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Nuveen Small Cap Value over the last ten calendar years (to learn more about RealAlpha™ and other measures, please visit our FAQ):

The fund added a significant amount of value, but mostly only over the last two years of the evaluation period. The volatility of the fund, measured by the standard deviation of monthly returns, was slightly higher than that of the reference ETF portfolio. The fund’s RealBeta™ was markedly above that of the broad-based domestic equity ETF.

The following chart with related statistics presents the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio for the fund over the same analysis period:

Since the fund’s performance was unremarkable through 2014, let’s skip the usual five-year analysis and instead focus on the most recent three years. Here is a chart with related statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund:

In 2015 and 2016, the fund added a significant amount of value at the expense of volatility that was somewhat higher than that of its reference ETF portfolio.

The following chart with associated statistics illustrates the fixed reference ETF portfolio for the fund over the same shorter period:

The fund had equivalent positions in the aforementioned IWN, KRE and PRN, as well as the iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth ETF (IJT). Clearly, the fund’s exposure to small-cap growth stocks was elevated compared to the longer-term level.

For completeness, the final chart with statistics depicts the relative performance of the fund under current management through 2014:

In sum, the Nuveen Small Cap Value Fund significantly outperformed its reference ETF portfolio only over the last two years. Consequently, all of the annualized returns over standard three-, five- and ten-year periods paint an incomplete and quite misleading picture of the fund’s past performance. The fund’s longer-term record does not offer any assurance that the recent lucky streak will persist. The fund’s steep front load detracts from its appeal. Historically, the fund had small distributions, which made it suitable for taxable accounts.

To learn more about the Nuveen Small Cap Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

This weekend’s profile in Barron’s covers the Davenport Value & Income Fund (DVIPX). This $509 million, no-load, large-cap fund sports a reasonable 0.89% current (0.93% prospectus) expense ratio and 25% turnover. According to the article

Value & Income has returned 15.4% annually over the past five years, better than 85% of its large-cap value peers, says Morningstar. The return so far this year is 9.71%, two percentage points better than the S&P 500, and ahead of 74% of its competitors.

With an inception date at the end of 2010, the fund has a relatively short history. Therefore, the following analysis will focus on the three- and five-year periods through August 2016.

The prospectus benchmark for the fund is the S&P 500 Index. One of the efficient implementations of this index is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that the fund returned more than the ETF in only 8% of all rolling 36-month periods, 22% of 24-month periods and 35% of 12-month periods. The median underperformance over a rolling 36-month periods was 4.9%.

A comparison of rolling returns, which determines relative gains or losses of the fund over typical holding periods, does not adjust for the fund’s volatility or exposures. Alpholio™’s patented methodology provides an insight into the latter aspects of the fund’s performance. A simplest variant of this methodology constructs a reference ETF portfolio with both fixed membership and weights. Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for the Davenport Value & Income:

Over the analysis period, the fund produced virtually no annualized discounted RealAlpha™ (to learn about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ). The volatility of the fund, measured as the standard deviation of monthly returns, was higher than that of the reference ETF portfolio. The RealBeta™ of the fund was below that of a broad-based equity market ETF.

The following chart with related statistics shows the constant reference portfolio for the fund:

The final chart with associated statistics compares the total return of the Davenport Value & Income Fund and the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF since the fund’s inception:

The ETF outperformed the fund in terms of all measures listed in the above table. The average correlation between monthly returns of the fund and the ETF over a rolling 36-month period was 0.97.

In sum, the Davenport Value & Income Fund failed to add a substantial amount of value when compared to its reference ETF portfolios. Despite its fairly focused portfolio (targeted 45-55 holdings), the fund could effectively have been substituted by a single comparable ETF with superior performance characteristics.

To learn more about the Davenport Value & Income and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

Over the past five years, the Cullen High Dividend Equity fund has averaged 11.2% annually. In the past year, the fund is up 10.7%, more than double the returns of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Where the fund really adds value, however, is in its downside protection. The mutual fund has outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value index, in 75% of down months, 86% of down quarters, and 100% of down years. The fund’s 12-month average yield is 2.25%, versus the S&P 500’s 2.06%.

It is worth noting that approximately 15% of the fund’s holdings are currently in foreign stocks. (ADRs can constitute up to 30% of holdings, which should be taken into account when constructing an overall portfolio containing the fund.) Nevertheless, the primary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the purely domestic S&P 500® Index. One of the long-lived and low-cost implementations of this index is the SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (SPY). Alpholio™’’s calculations indicate that over the 10 years through June 2016 the fund returned more than the ETF in only 15% of all rolling 36-month periods, 35% of 24-month periods and 42% of 12-month periods. The median cumulative (not annualized) under-performance over a rolling 36-month period was 5.5%.

The secondary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Russell 1000® Value Index. The iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD) is one of the accessible implementations of this index. Over the past 10 years through June 2016, the fund outperformed this ETF in about 40% of all rolling 36-month periods (median cumulative return difference of negative 1.4%), 53% of 24-month periods and 47% of 12-month periods.

A mere comparison of returns does not account for the fund’s volatility or exposure to various risk factors. A better approach is to use one of the variants of Alpholio™’s patented methodology. The simplest variant constructs a reference ETF portfolio with both the membership and weights fixed over the analysis interval. The ETFs and their weights are selected such that the reference portfolio most closely mimics the analyzed fund. Here is the resulting chart of cumulative RealAlpha™ for Cullen High Dividend Equity:

Over the entire analysis period, the fund produced a negative 0.2% of annualized discounted RealAlpha™ (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ). The fund’s standard deviation (a measure of volatility of returns) was approximately 0.25% higher than that of the reference ETF portfolio. The fund’s RealBeta™, measured against a broad-market equity ETF, was about 0.75.

The following chart and related statistics illustrate the constant ETF membership and weights in the reference portfolio over the same analysis period:

The performance of the Cullen High Dividend Equity fund over the past five- and three-year periods was similar: it produced negative 0.6% and negative 0.1% of annualized discounted RealAlpha™, respectively. Therefore, despite a relatively low management fee and turnover, the fund did not add any value for its shareholders on a truly risk-adjusted basis.

Over the past 10 years, during the 2007-09 market downturn, the fund’s drawdown was 46.3% compared to 50.8% for SPY, so the fund offered a limited downside protection. Since inception, the fund captured 81% of the down-market, but only 82% of the up-market as well, compared to the S&P 500® Index. With the overall count of 36 positions and top-10 holdings constituting over 38% of the total, the fund portfolio is fairly concentrated. However, historically the fund managed to keep its volatility below that of its primary benchmark.

To learn more about the Cullen High Dividend Equity and other mutual funds, please register on our website.

Today’s Q&A piece in The Wall Street Journal features the Smead Value Fund (SMVLX; Investor Class shares). This post is an update to the previous analysis of the fund. According to the article, the fund’s manager

…doggedly has followed his beliefs to lead Smead Value Fund (SMVLX) to the top 20% of its Morningstar peer group in each of the past five calendar years.

While this is a worthwhile accomplishment, it does not take into account that the performance bar in a peer group is set too low. That is because an average fund underperforms its benchmark by slightly more than the expense ratio. Consequently, even if all funds in a given category failed to beat their benchmarks, some would still receive highest possible ratings because of the imposed quasi-normal distribution. This rating methodology was perhaps applicable when the traditional mutual funds were the only way to pool investments, and when actively-managed funds dominated the field. However, today the exchange-traded products (ETPs), and most notably the exchange-traded fund (ETF) subset thereof, constitute easily-accessible investment alternatives.

In this follow-up post, let’s see how the Smead Value Fund performed compared to a reference portfolio of ETFs with both fixed membership and weights. This is the simplest variant of Alpholio™’s patented methodology. The reference portfolio was constructed such that its periodic returns most closely tracked those of the fund. Here is a chart of the resulting cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund:

From February 2008 (the earliest full calendar month since inception) through February 2016, the fund generated a negative 0.6% of discounted cumulative RealAlpha™ (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please consult the FAQ). Put another way, at the end of the evaluation period, an investor who chose the reference ETF portfolio would realize an over 6% higher cumulative return than an investor in the fund. Moreover, the standard deviation of the reference portfolio (a measure of return volatility) was 0.55% lower than that of the fund.

The following chart shows a constant composition of the reference portfolio for the fund over the same analysis period:

In sum, the Smead Value Fund could have easily been substituted, and with better risk-adjusted results, by a fixed portfolio of readily-available ETFs. Apart from superior performance and clear visibility of exposures, such a portfolio would offer intra-day trading capability, which some investors may find of value.

To learn more about the Smead Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.